RealClimate logo


Australian silliness and July temperature records

Filed under: — gavin @ 16 August 2016

Some of you that follow my twitter account will have already seen this, but there was a particularly amusing episode of Q&A on Australian TV that pitted Prof. Brian Cox against a newly-elected politician who is known for his somewhat fringe climate ‘contrarian’ views. The resulting exchanges were fun:

The insinuation that NASA data was corrupting the data, lead to the following series of tweets:







By coincidence, yesterday was also the scheduled update for the GISTEMP July temperature release, and because July is usually the warmest month of the year on an absolute basis, a record in July usually means a record of absolute temperature too. A record February (as we had earlier this year) is generally with respect only to previous Februaries, summer temperatures are still warmer even if the anomaly is smaller. And so it proved

Normally we just plot the monthly anomalies (with respect to each month), but here I used the estimates of the seasonal cycle in temperature from MERRA2 to enhance the analysis so that months can be compared in an absolute sense.

This string of record-breaking months is coming to a close now that El Niño has faded, but it is sufficient to give a very high likelihood that 2016 will be a record warm year in the surface records.

185 Responses to “Australian silliness and July temperature records”

  1. 101
    Piotr says:

    Alfred Jones, 79 responding to BPL:
    “As to my colorful hyperbole about peer review and how it relates to you”

    “Colorful hyperbole” is one way to describe it. “Overreaching sarcasm” is the way I would.
    Overreaching, because the stronger the sarcasm, the more unequivocal the proof has to be. Your sarcasm was quite strong, a writer might have even called it “hyperbolic”:

    “[BPL supposedly] claims about how scientists are fighting hand over fist to admire your papers”; AJ, 74

    so the proof should be very solid. In fact, you had already indicated what such a proof could have involved: the work of BPL being laughed out by the scientific community and BPL, when called out on that, unable to face it and hiding behind silence:

    “I noted that the only paper you’ve mentioned here was summarily rejected (because it was laughable?) and asked for a list of your vast work. Crickets, as always, responded. (or did I miss your response?); Alfred Jones,74

    The afterthought bracket comment here is a vehicle for plausible deniability – because if you really thought that it is likely that you might be wrong – you wouldn’t go as “hyperbolic” on your opponent.

    With the crickets imaginary, and with BPL showing that this “summarily rejected (because it was laughable?)” paper wasn’t the only one of his, you had a chance to show how you are, unlike BPL, a man of character:

    “Unlike you and your twin Victor, I’ll happily admit my error if so. I cherish admitting when I’m wrong, as it shows character.” Alfred Jones,74

    they sound rather hollow, when your admission of error is used as an opportunity … to get at the person about whom you made “hyperbollically” wrong claims:

    “As to my colorful hyperbole about peer review and how it relates to you, I thought you were a writer. Most writers recognize such techniques. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that you don’t, or, more likely, that you choose to pretend to be stupid when it suits your purposes. Do you actually think that appearing stupid is somehow an effective insult about me?” Alfred Jones,79

    By the honesty of their admission of error you shall know them … ;-)
    ==
    Piotr
    P.S. I have no horse in your disagreements with BPL on the arguments related to climate. The problem is that it gets more and more difficult to hear it through all the noise of the hyperbolae.

  2. 102

    I don’t know why this didn’t show up after I posted it, but just in case it was lost, here it is again:

    AJ: (Now man up about the Powerwall and you’ll probably be rewarded by my dropping dead of a heart attack in surprise!) (Cue the crickets)

    BPL: Why you want to hear about the Powerwall in terms of crickets escapes me, but I’ll do my best.

    A Tesla Powerwall(R)(c)(TM) has a mass of about 97 kilograms and stores 6.4 kilowatt-hours of energy, which it can release at up to 3.3 kilowatts of power.

    Crickets are a family of insects, Gryllidae. An average adult cricket has a mass of 2.65 x 10^-4 kg. If we assume this is all carbohydrate or protein, this is equivalent to 1.06 kilocalories of energy or 4.435 joules. Utilization is undoubtedly only a tiny fraction of this; perhaps 10^-6 without feeding again, which would imply a cricket operates at a power level of c. 4.4 x 10^-6 watts.

    The Tesla Powerwall(R)(c)(TM) therefore exceeds a cricket in mass by an average of 366,000; in energy storage by a factor of 2.304 million; and in power by a factor of 750 million. In other words, it would take three quarters of a billion crickets to produce the maximum power capacity of a single Tesla wall!

    I think the facts here speak for themselves.

    Was that what you wanted?

  3. 103
    L Hamilton says:

    A simple way graph up to date is using uncentered 12-month averages. Here’s the UAH satellite index (12-month) through July 2016:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqFrHK1WEAMD4W7.jpg:large

    Surface temperature indexes (all of them) show the most recent values even higher, e.g.:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cp6tS43WIAAJdf6.jpg:large

  4. 104
    Digby Scorgie says:

    Peter Carson @100

    From your provocative statement “. . . confirmation that there is no such evidence [of AGW]” one suspects you are in the same camp as Roberts. There is plenty of evidence but one could drown fanatical deniers in it and they would still deny it. So why should anyone “help you out”?

    If you were really serious, you would have stated the problem differently, thus: Dr Cox was probably inhibited by the limited time available to put the point of AGW across. What is the most succinct way one could do so?

    My answer is that it involves knowledge of the warming effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the fact that this is increasing, and that from isotope analysis it is clear that most of the excess CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels. But you don’t want to know that, do you?

  5. 105

    PC 100: Cox, etc were asked for evidence of Man induced climate change. He replied with graphs ready showing global warming, but he could not supply such evidence for AGW. His non-reply is further confirmation that there is no such evidence. . . Anybody like to try helping out?

    BPL: The fact that you’re not familiar with the evidence doesn’t mean there is none.

    It is clear that CO2 has been rising. Hans Suess showed in 1955 that the new CO2 was anthropogenic, as demonstrated from its radioisotope signature. Roger Revelle and Hand Suess confirmed that in 1957. Here’s more detail if you want it.

    http://bartonlevenson.com/AnthropogenicCO2.html

  6. 106

    P 101,

    Spasibo, Piotr.

  7. 107
    Polly says:

    It’s almost reached the point of parody right now. Temperature records every year (over year), climate disasters occurring at an unprecedented scale, and still these nitwits prattle on. Fortunately, the tide is starting to shift most everywhere else.

  8. 108
    Thomas says:

    100 Peter Carson says: Anybody like to try helping out?

    My thoughts, analysis, comments, personal opinions and sincerely held beliefs about:
    Rock star-scientist Brian Cox confused on more than global temperatures

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPT2xYM2ViOVBwTU0

    Details matter because the details are usually what the real facts are.

    Then there’s the ‘big picture’ and it’s that which Frames the Context. Together this will lead one to the ‘truth’ of the matters raised.

    Denial is a False Belief – the scientific facts proves it so.

    No Facts = No Scientific Consensus

    Beliefs, Ideology and Opinions are not required for a Consensus to arise

    For example:

    The Neo Sophists: Intellectual integrity in the Information Age by Randall K. Engle

    Although corporate interests insist on a dominant role in determining not only instructional models, but also the course of university–based scientific research, they blatantly refuse to acknowledge the guiding principles of normal scientific inquiry, as defined by Thomas Kuhn (1970).

    “Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prerequisites for normal science, i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition.”

    http://uncommonculture.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/881/790

    You’re welcome. :-)

  9. 109
    Hank Roberts says:

    … Posters must use a single name for comments attached to a single post, but changing names between comment sections is not discouraged in the slightest.

    Your attempt to instigate a witch hunt to invade my privacy disappoints me….

    Comment by Alfred Jones — 23 Aug 2016 @ 1:57 PM

    Hm.

    I’d wondered if a growing crowd all seemingly channeling the same bad information source was arriving at RC.
    Maybe not, eh?

  10. 110
    Chris O'Neill says:

    Victor:

    The graph displayed by Cox is inconsistent with the satellite data, where in all cases 2015 is cooler than 1998, and there are no record years since then

    That should read “there are no record calendar years since then”.

    As long as you are not fixated on calendar years, the graph displayed by Cox is consistent with the satellite data with both showing the last year or so as the hottest on record.

  11. 111
    Chris O'Neill says:

    Victor:

    Interesting that the audience is in such a good mood, since obviously they’ve managed to convince themselves that the END is NIGH.

    That should read:

    Interesting that the audience is in such a good mood, since obviously they’ve managed to convince themselves that the END of CLIMATE SCIENCE DENIAL is NIGH

    which is obvious from the exposure of climate science denial clowns like Roberts that they just witnessed on the show.

  12. 112
    Vendicar Decarian says:

    PC 100: His non-reply is further confirmation that there is no such evidence. . .

    Similarly there is no “proof” that the little black dots seen in microscopic slides cause disease for those who are incapable of understanding or who are unwilling to understand the scientific reasoning behind the “proof”.

    For the most part, denialists are people who can barely add and subtract if they can do it at all.

    They are Trump supporters who are not capable of rational deductive reasoning, so providing them with an argument based on rational, deductive reasoning, means nothing to them.

    Pearls before swine.

  13. 113
    Vendicar Decarian says:

    “As you can see, Tamino’s post is dated March, 2016. And as you can also see, the temp. for 2015 was considerably lower than that for 1998” – Victor
    Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire…

    The last data point in the graphic you link to is from 2014.

    It doesn’t include any data from 2015 or later.

  14. 114
    Vendicar Decarian says:

    “This time set the Moving Average to 0 months and the end date to 2016.” – Victor

    And in all cases the peak in 2015 is higher than the one in 2009, contrary to your earlier claim.

    What’s wrong with you Victor?

    Are you incapable of interpreting a simple graph?

    Don’t you know which way is up?

    Can’t you figure out that 3 is bigger than 2?

    Can’t you count?

  15. 115
    Vendicar Decarian says:

    “I defended that claim and as a result was accused of lying.” – Victor

    That is because you were lying.

    More recently you posted a link to a plot of global temperatures that ends in 2014 and claimed that it showed 2015 temperatures.

    Then you claimed that a series of plots showed that 1998 temps were higher than 2015, when in fact the opposite is the case.

    You claimed there was no correlation, which was shown to be a lie.

    You also claimed that NASA “falsified the data” which is also a lie.

    You seem to tell a lot of lies Victor.

  16. 116
    Victor says:

    #115 Vendicar, the original claim was that, according to the satellite data, 2015 was warmer than 1998. I demonstrated that this was not the case. And yes, I got confused by Tamino’s graph, which only goes to 2014 — and I apologized for my error. But then I pointed you to another series of 4 more up-to-date satellite graphs, all of which show 2015 as cooler than 1998.

    If you still refuse to believe me, check the results from Kevin Cowtan’s web page: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

    Set the start date to 1979, the end date to 2016, the moving average to 0 and check all four satellite graphs. You’ll see that in all 4 cases, 1998 is warmer than 2015. So for that matter is 2010.

    I have no idea why you insist that I’m lying, but it looks like you are seeing what you want to see — in other words you are lying to yourself. I expect an apology.

  17. 117
    MA Rodger says:

    Vendicar Decarian @115,
    I feel you misrepresent Victor the Troll @98 with both your selective quote and your primary response. (This does rather repeat your response @76.)

    The full quote from Victor ‘Flaming-Breeks’ Gauer @98 was:-

    ” But the dispute that started this exchange (some time ago) centered on a claim that, according to the satellite data, 2015 was cooler than 1998. I defended that claim and as a result was accused of lying.”

    This full quote is indeed packed with misrepresentation, what many would characterise as ‘lies’.

    Victor’s quote talks of “a dispute that started this exchange (some time ago).” This “some-time-ago” description is a bit odd as it had been only the previous week that “the dispute” began.
    To be sure, this is not the same dispute as that in the OP video clip which saw Malcolm Roberts, quoting sock-puppet Steve Goddard as his source, accusing NASA of corrupting/manipulating NOAA GMST data. This allegedly caused the disappearance the “schorchyisimo!!!” 1930s. Additionally, Malcolm Roberts alleges the GMST data should show that“1998 was about the same as 2015/2016” of which “both were El Nino years.”) Victor @4 makes plain his position is not part of this Malcolm Roberts dispute.

    So when Victor wrote @15 “…where in all cases 2015 is cooler than 1998,” there was still no dispute, nobody yet responding to his trollish remarks. The comment was not made as part of a dispute or ‘defending any claim’. Nothing was at that time “centred on” on claims of a 1998 “schorchyisimo!!!” for satellite data. @15 it was only then being introduced onto the thread by Victor ‘Flaming-Breeks’ Gauer, of his own volition and entirely unrequested.

    There is no evidence to suggest that it was ‘defence’ of “the claim” then ‘resulted’ in the accusation of ‘flaming breeks’ @76. And to make issue of such an accusation is a bit much given Victor trolled onto this thread accusing the two characters featured in the OP’s video clip of being one “a silly fool” and the other “an arrogant pr*ck,” while giving no reason for such pronouncements. If that wasn’t enough, Victor then added more insults, again without reason, by proposing that NASA could be guilty of producing falsified scientific data! (Dangerous talk given the author of the OP is also one of our hosts & responsible for that same NASA data!!! With such talk, mind you don’t end up back in the borehole, Victor.)

    So the one part of Victor’s full quote (the full paragraph) @98 that isn’t entirely dodgy is the bit quoted @76 when accusing Victor of lying, an accusation now repeated @115. In all fairness, Victor did fail to explain (indeed, he still hasn’t) exactly what he meant by his 1998 satellite “schorchyisimo!!!” position. And in defending it he has been badly wrong far more often than he has been right. But this is because his stated position was not the result of any sensible analysis. That is characteristic of the man who is driven by his denialism and stupidity and will ever be making silly nonsensical statements. But like a broken clock, Victor will not always be wrong.

    And as I go far enough to suggest a defence for part of Victor ‘Flaming-Breeks’ Gauer’s comment @98, it would be remiss not to point out that the other paragraph of his comment @98 is grossly inaccurate. It is entirely (to use Victor’s word) “misleading”. Victor tells us in that paragraph that to suggest 2016 is on course to become the satellite“schorchyisimo!!!” year is “misleading”. For Victor’s argument to have any merit, the last part of 2016 (Sept-Dec) would have to be colder than any year Sept-Dec since 2000 and require a drop in TLT from the July figure far greater than any such drop on record to date. Victor the Troll’s second paragraph @98 is obfuscation pure-&-simple.

  18. 118
    Piotr says:

    Alfred Jones in 92: “changing names between comment sections is not discouraged in the slightest. Your attempt to instigate a witch hunt to invade my privacy disappoints me….”

    Piotr: its not about the administrative regulation of this web site, but about honesty. If an author posts under what looks like a real name (“Alfred Jones”, “Hank Roberts” etc.) then he gets some credibility mileage just from implying: Look, I am not a troll – I stand by my claims, signing them with my real name. This would no longer be true, if one used more than one name.

    I don’t know, whether you are who you say you are or you have previously written under different names – that when asked by Hank you didn’t say – “you are barking up the wrong tree: I have never posted here under other names”, but instead – defended the practice of appearing under different names – makes the latter more likely.

    As for the motives of using multiple names, in my 20+ years of Internet discussions, I have seen it done only for three reasons:

    1. to protect yourself or your family from secret police in your oppressive country or from dangerous fanatics wishing to do you, or your family, serious harm

    2. to appear as many – to influence others by creating the impression that the promoted views are shared by many (many people supporting an ideology, supporting given a party, or really, really like the reviewed product or service)

    3. To no longer be responsible for your earlier claims and actions – so nobody could use your own words against you: to prove your flip-flops or hypocrisy (you did something now you lecture others about).

    From what I have seen in this thread I can’t think of any totalitarian state that your views would offend and rather doubt that your opponents in RC are out to get you in your personal life.
    Which leaves the other two motivations… Which would make your accusations of the “instigation of a witch hunt to invade [your] privacy” sound, at best, “hyperbolic”. And not in the good sense of the word you seem to be using it in this thread… ;-)
    ==
    Piotr

  19. 119
    Thomas says:

    I did some background research into the response by the denialist Jennifer Marohasy about her Cox, BOM, Gavin and Nasa/Giss claims and the IPA in Oz who funds her as a “research fellow”. Some may find parts of it useful for future reference.

    Source article: http://ipa.org.au/sectors/climate-change/news/3544/brian-cox-confused-on-more-than-global-temperatures
    IPA/OLO Forum Copy: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18459
    Copied to here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/
    (some very comments by a MikeR there)

    First Forum response: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=0#327777 Key word “rubbish”

    Main Critique of Marohasy’s Article:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPT2xYM2ViOVBwTU0

    2016-08-27 Thomas OReilly research findings IPA-OLO-Marohasy (connecting the dots)
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPbXkzb1RlVGJaZFU

    Addendum: Marohasy and her partner John Abbot have published most of their climate conspiracy related ‘science papers’ at WIT-UK

    About Wessex Institute of Technology: (Kudos to Hank Roberts for the info)

    Wessex Institute of Technology is a big Scam and their conferences are …
    ….. Wessex Institute is a big money making machine for Mr Brebbia by offering very …
    Dubious conference invitations. Just spam, or do these meetings …
    https://www.researchgate.net/…/Dubious_conference_invitations_Just_spam_or_do_th…
    Jul 9, 2013 – These bogus and predatory conference invitations are becoming just … I’d say that I get such mails for both journals and conferences on a … may i ask you about the case of Wessex Institute of Technology(WIT)?do you have …
    List of Bogus Journals. Fake Journals. Bogus Science ie Pseudoscience
    Wessex Institute of Technology ·
    REF: http://www.google.com.au/#q=%22Wessex+institute%22+journal+bogus%3F&gws_rd=cr

    John Abbot is a British ex-pat in Oz.

    Related Ref: Old 2010 bs ‘paper’ by Prof John Nicol Physics JCU about the non-eGHG
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPeV9KNDRZUjVZb1E
    Co-worker at JCU with Bob Carter (deceased)

  20. 120
    Lawrence Coleman says:

    Victor’s apt analogy should be that of a malevolent virus. I don’t know exactly from where he was sent to RC but his presence here is more than counterproductive. And yet you idiots continue to feed him. All he want’s to see and ultimately pass on to his other vested interest groups is real or perceived disunity in this forum. He will not glean any disunity because the contributors to this forum are by and large scientists who understand the psychics behind global warming as thoroughly and well as; why does ice expand when heated; or why can warm atmosphere hold more water vapour than cold. Cant you guys see that he is a troll on a mission and just for crying out loud… IGNORE HIM!!!! I hardly contribute here anymore coz so much time and effort is wasted on a malicious troll. Wake up guys..PLEASE!!!

  21. 121
    Vendicar Decarian says:

    “But then I pointed you to another series of 4 more up-to-date satellite graphs, all of which show 2015 as cooler than 1998.” – Victor

    Liar.. Liar.. Pants on fire…

    All four satellite data sets show 2015 peaked at a higher temperature than 1998.

    Once again you have forgotten to turn off data averaging.

    How many more times are you going to make the same mistake Victor?

    Even with the smoothing turned on only RSSSv4.9 TTT shows a slightly lower peak. The other three are still higher than in 1998.

    The peak by the way, doesn’t occur in 2015 but in 2016.

    Repeating the same mistakes over and over again as you do is the hallmark of the incompetent and the willfully ignorant.

  22. 122
    Vendicar Decarian says:

    Liar… Liar.. Pants on fire…

    On the basis that you are lying about a simple graph, and repeatedly doing so, I submit that your account be blocked.

    “Set the start date to 1979, the end date to 2016, the moving average to 0 and check all four satellite graphs. You’ll see that in all 4 cases, 1998 is warmer than 2015. So for that matter is 2010.”- Victor

    The exact opposite is true.

  23. 123
    Chris O'Neill says:

    Victor:

    the original claim was that, according to the satellite data, 2015 was..

    No.

    The original claim was:

    The graph displayed by Cox is inconsistent with the satellite data

    That is a false claim because both satellite and surface data are consistent in showing that the last year was the warmest on record, unless you have some arbitrary fixation with calendar years which doesn’t prove anything.

  24. 124
    Simon C says:

    It’s interesting that some of this debate has centered around the attribution of causation – ie, can you show that CO2 has *caused* global warming. But causation, like “responsibility”, is not a simple concept in a complex multivariate situation.

    Philosophers still argue about what causation actually is, and in empirical terms, the question is usually adressed in terms of experiments where one state (eg of matter or energy) can be reliably shown to always precede another state, and the connection between the two appears to have an innevitability about it – ie, if
    you do x, then y will (probably) happen. Scientifically, some sort of explanation as to the
    sequence of events is expected at the mechanistic levels of eg physics, chemistry or biology.

    This is OK when you can completely control the replicability of a situation (eg changing the CO2 in a glass bottle) but rather more difficult in the case of the planet you are living on, when the inferences have to be made on the basis of both what happens in a glass bottle (physics) and what the observed behaviour of the unique subject (the planetary climate system) has been in terms of recent observations and its geological history. There are enough variables involved here that people who are anxious to avoid a particular inference, can usually find somewhere to hide. It’s unfortunate, but is one of the limitations of not (usually) being able to repeat controlled experiments on the behaviour of the entire planet that we live on.

    So in calling for proof of causation, denialists are asking for people to go hunting for a snark – something that is intrinsically very unlikely to be found. As with evolution, some conclusions are irresistably more convincing than others. (“can you show me an instance where natural selection has caused one species to change into another?””No, but I can show you plenty of examples of where that is by far the simplest and most reasonable explanation, with our current understanding, of what happened”). As far as I know, there are no credible, viable, denialist climate models out there; this is hardly a coincidence.

  25. 125
    Dan H. says:

    There appears to be quite the battle between the two Vs above. I posted the link to the most recent satellite data.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2016_v6.jpg

    Vendicular’s claim that the peak in 2015 exceeded that in 1998 is not entirely accurate. The peak to which he was referring occurred this year, February, 2016. However, even that is only one data point. Victor’s claim that 1998 was warmer is verified by the data. The average for the year 2015 (+0.26) was lower than both 1998 (+.48) and 2010 (+.34). Whether 2016 will exceed that of 1998 remains to be seen. Through the first seven months, both years are tied at +0.58.

  26. 126
    Victor says:

    Seems to me that if you are running a blog and inviting comments then you need to monitor regularly, not just when you have time to spare from a busy schedule. If you’re too busy then don’t try to maintain a blog. People take the time to write comments and then must wait days on end for a response. That’s unfair and unnecessary. If you don’t have time to monitor your blog then don’t monitor it, just post all the comments. So what if someone says something you’re not happy with. Every blogger has that problem. And don’t tell me you’re monitoring the blog to weed out personal attacks and ad hominems because we see this sort of thing on RealClimate all the time. Get real folks. If you want to be taken seriously as real scientists running a serious climate change blog, then do it right. And while you’re at it: YES, you do have a responsibility to weed out personal attacks and other irrelevancies.

  27. 127
    Jim Eager says:

    I see poor, hopeless Victor is still nattering on about 1998 being warmer than 2015, ignoring the fact that while this is trivially true it is entirely irrelevant.

    Victor, to paraphrase your own instructions, this time set the Moving Average to 0 months and the end date to 2017 so that you will be comparing apples to apples, i.e. peak el nino to peak el nino, instead of crab apples to apples.

  28. 128
    Thomas says:

    126 Oh Victor, my Victor, cry me a river. If you do not like the programming, then YOU can change the channel.

    Some think you’re just a Troll, but that’s a value judgement. In my humble opinion you’re just a dick. Trolls are generally much smarter and sharper than you are. :-)

    For the benefit of others:
    OCCAM’S NIGHTMARE the book about Conspiracy Theories and Vapid Lunacy some believe – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OeUINoYWsg

    A Great Father’s Day present
    http://www.lulu.com/au/en/shop/s-peter-davis/occams-nightmare-ebook/ebook/product-21017102.html

    First Commandment for ‘Truth Tellers’: Thou Shall Not Commit Logical Fallacies – http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1420756844457.jpg :-)

    Political responses can be informed by evidence and facts via Science but it is still the Politicians (like Malcolm Roberts/Jim Inofe) alone who will be remembered for their decisions.

  29. 129
    JCH says:

    Wood for Trees has added UAH beta version 6.0. With seven months reporting, 2016 currently has a mean of .585 ℃. It would seem entirely possible that 2016 could hang on become the warmest year in UAH beta version 6.0.

    1998 was .484 ℃; 2015 was .262 ℃.

    2002 was about as warm as 1998. 2005 was warmer than 1998. 2006 was as warm as 1998. 2007 was warmer than 1998. 2009 was warmer than 1998. 2010 was warmer than 1998. 2012 was as warm as 1998. 2013 was warmer than 1998. 2014 was warmer than 1998. 2015 was warmer than 1998. 2016 looks like it will be warmer than 1998.

    Personally, I do not think the satellite temperature series call any of that into doubt.

    If Victor wants to bet on a loser, let him.

  30. 130
    Peter Carson says:

    It can be shown that AGW via CO2 is not possible.

    The problem with AGW is that somebody, sometime, somewhere has managed to subtly change the definition of “greenhouse gas” and thereby changed the whole playing field – and is WRONG!
    Now, the Greenhouse effect is stated to be warming of Earth because its radiated heat is absorbed/trapped by the “greenhouse gases” (eg CO2 and methane).

    From Wikipedia Greenhouse effect
    The mechanism is named after a faulty analogy with the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse. The way a greenhouse retains heat is fundamentally different, as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow and retaining warm air inside the structure.

    Your definition of greenhouse gases is wrong. All gases are greenhouse; they don’t need to be able to absorb IR to heat – conduction & convection work perfectly well. A greenhouse works by trapping warm air; Earth uses gravity to achieve that effect.

    The two definitions of “Greenhouse Effect” lead to totally different conclusions. The current AGW version leads to the conclusion that GE is related to the concentration of IR absorbing gases – only! It suggests the atmosphere would not be heated by Earth’s heat without these gases.
    [Try using your definition to explain the Greenhouse effect on Venus, Earth & Mars. Why is Earth’s so much larger than Mars’?]

    The correct version says GE is proportional to the total density of the atmosphere. Therefore CO2 at 0.04% has only a tiny effect, and GE is constant (global average).

    You can read more at my site.

  31. 131
    Dan says:

    126. Wow, attacking the moderator of a science blog. You lie repeatedly about the science and make no effort to learn about statistics or climate science. How truly vile.

  32. 132

    LC 120: Cant you guys see that he is a troll on a mission and just for crying out loud… IGNORE HIM!!!!

    BPL: I agree, but it’s hard when you can’t filter someone. And the owners of the blog are not cooperating by moving him to the borehole. I wish this site used different software so we could just erase posts from an obnoxious poster, but no one wants to (or has the time to–these are working scientists) manage the transition.

  33. 133
    Victor says:

    Chris O’Neill @123:

    “Victor: the original claim was that, according to the satellite data, 2015 was..

    No. The original claim was: The graph displayed by Cox is inconsistent with the satellite data”

    Some of you folks have a very short memory. The original claim, which was being argued hotly on this blog some weeks ago, was that an article by James Taylor denying that 2015 was the hottest year, based on the satellite record, was either inaccurate or an outright lie. I looked into this and defended Taylor. THAT was the original claim I was referring to. My comment on this thread was based on the research I did back then.

    Here is Taylor’s original article:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2016/01/14/2015-was-not-even-close-to-hottest-year-on-record/#4a147ca323c6

    And here is an article confirming Taylor’s claim, complete with UAH graph: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/nasanoaa-2015-warmest-year-record-except-earths-lower-atmosphere

    An excerpt: “However, [Thomas] Karl also stated that 2015 was not the hottest year in the lower troposphere, the lowest section of the Earth’s atmosphere, despite what could be an historically strong El Nino causing warmer-than-average temperatures. According to satellite data that measures temperatures in the lower troposhere, 2015 was only the third warmest year on record, he said.”

    Whether one considers this “relevant” or not is beside the point. I was, from the start of that particular brouhaha, referring to the data, not what it might mean. But for the record, the fact that we find higher temps in 2016 means little as far as long-term trends are concerned, as it could easily be a one-time thing (i.e., “noise”). It’s relevance will become apparent only as time goes by.

  34. 134

    OK, I have to admit I’ve lost patience with the back and forth about annual anomalies. Why futz about with the SkS trend calculator, admirable though it may be for its intended purposes? Only slightly harder and much cleaner to go to the original data. Just collect the monthly anomalies, calculate the mean for the year, and there you are.

    Here’s what you get:

    GISTEMP, 1998/2010/2015: 63/72/87
    NCEI, 1998/2010/2015: 63/70/90
    HADCRU, 1998/2010/2015: 54/56/75
    UAH (5.6), 1998/2010/2015: 42/40/36
    RSS, 1998/2010/2015: 55/47/36

    (Note, though, that I’ve rounded all values to two decimal places though some were originally reported in three.)

    So:

    1) Victor is correct that for the satellite data sets, 1998 and 2010 were warmer than 2015. Of course, the instrumental data tell a different tale.

    2) Chris is correct that the original claim was about Cox’s graph, and (though this goes beyond just the data I give in this comment) correct that Cox’s graph is not inconsistent with the satellite record despite the fact that it is not *identical* to the satellite record.

    I wrote about this far upthread, and have no intention of recreational scrolling now to find it. Suffice it to say that you need to consider the entire shape of the time series in question, not just a couple of notable points. You also need to consider the fact that the instrumental and satellite records do not measure exactly the same thing: 2-meter air temperatures are not the same as lower troposphere temperatures.

    3) Jim and Chris are both correct in saying that the focus on calendar years can mislead. ENSO cycles are variable, and more importantly yet, it’s quite clear from the various records that there’s a lag in the satellite data in terms of temperature response to ENSO. You see warming in the instrumental data first, with the peak in the sat data delayed by several months.

    NB: Vendicar is correct that the peak satellite value for the current ENSO cycle is higher than in 1998, but as noted by DanH, that peak did not occur until February of this year.

    Note also that DanH’s numbers are from the new version of UAH–version 6–while my numbers are based on 5.6 which is as far as I know still ‘official’, although Dr. Spencer has been reporting the provisional v. 6 numbers for some time now on his personal website.

    As far as Dan’s claim that this year to date is in a ‘toss-up’ for warmest goes, if he is correct (and I presume he is), then that is true only for UAH version 6. Year to date numbers for GISTEMP, NCEI, HADCRU, UAH 5.6, and RSS:

    106
    102
    93
    64
    67

    All are comfortably–if that is the word–above the respective values for 1998.

  35. 135

    PC 130: The correct version says GE is proportional to the total density of the atmosphere. Therefore CO2 at 0.04% has only a tiny effect, and GE is constant (global average).

    BPL: Mr. Carson, your statements betray a complete ignorance of the field. Please crack a book on atmosphere physics before pontificating about a subject you’ve never studied. I would recommend starting with Houghton’s “The Physics of Atmospheres” or Petty’s “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation.”

    For the record, we have known for more than a century that “greenhouse effect” is a bad term, but we’re stuck with it. Greenhouse gases very much do differ from other gases. Due to quantum effects, they absorb infrared light efficiently, while non-greenhouse gases do not.

  36. 136
    Steve Fish says:

    Re- Comment by Peter Carson — 31 Aug 2016 @ 2:43 AM, ~#130

    This post is your second attempt to pontificate without any knowledge. You finish with the ignorant statements about the atmosphere of Mars. So, to add to what BPL said, there is a very low concentration of CO2 on Mars. The atmosphere is almost a vacuum and you apparently don’t know the difference between percent and concentration. So, Mars is cold, Venus has a very high concentration and is very hot and Earth is intermediate for both. Sheesh.

    Steve

  37. 137
    Thomas says:

    130 Peter Carson, anyone even partially informed about climate science already knows the “GHE/GHGs” is a misnomer but still a useful (false) analogy put forward so the average Joe could understand the “overall effect” of increased long term warming of the earth’s surface and atmosphere/oceans. It’s not a scientific term, it’s merely useful term for the masses. A Strawman, yeah?

    I think it’s funny how you don’t mention radiant heat reflecting gases (sic) in your little missive only heat absorbing or trapping. Why is that? Thanks for the invite, sorry not my cup of tea. Could I suggest you read the content in some of the links i have posted instead? :-)

  38. 138
    Peter Carson says:

    #Barton.
    I do have a PhD in physical chemistry (in properties of gases) – which you could have found out from actually reading my site. It has more evidence.

    To repeat what I wrote in #130, which you appear not to have absorbed:
    “All gases are greenhouse; they don’t need to be able to absorb IR to heat – conduction & convection work perfectly well.”

    We are not stuck with the incorrect definition of “Greenhouse Effect” – which gives the wrong AGW result: GIGO.

    The correct version gives the correct results across the 3 rocky planets, Venus, Earth & Mars. The AGW “Greenhouse” version does not. A theory has to match all available data; therefore AGW is wrong.

  39. 139
    MA Rodger says:

    A quote of Victor “Flaming Breeks” Gauer from that month’s-old RealClimate thread he is referring to @133:-

    “By the way, if you go to the Skeptical Science trend calculator (https://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php), you’ll see that almost all the data sources show 2015 as no warmer(usually cooler) than 1998. The only significant exception is Karl 2015, which seems the odd man out.”

    (For those who do not continue to brood over such ancient interchanges, this was an OP/discussion-thread which addressed the response of climatologists to nonsensical lies being published in Forbes. The author of the nonsense was a James Taylor of The Heartland Institute of Outrageous Lies. Given the source, it is not so unexpected then that the nonsense was outrageous enough for proper climatologists to publish a rebuttal.)

    Victor the Troll evidently still lives in the warmth of the flaming lies that he contributed back in May and considers his rantings here to be a continuation of that months-old comment thread. Likely he still harbours fond memories of that old interchange, even if it did end in the Bore Hole for him.

  40. 140
    Nick O. says:

    Just looking at the NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice data and the images. We are not at minimum for this year yet and it is still trending down. It will not be a new record minimum by the looks of things, but there is a very interesting development, a really long reduced ice zone (not sure what term to use as it is such a large feature), stretching like a finger more or less towards the north pole. It is still some hundreds of miles away from the geographical pole at the moment but nonetheless I can’t help wondering how much more warmth it would take for the pole to be ice free.

    The link is here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    and you need to look at image no. 1 of 4 in the ‘slideshow’.

    Probably won’t happen this year. How often is the pole ice free at the end of the summer melt season?

  41. 141
    Dan H. says:

    Kevin,
    Nice summary. Although I would place the two years side by side to show the comparison. I only did this for CRU, UAH, and RSS, and presume that the other two surface measurements behave similarly to CRU.

    Year* CRU UAH RSS
    1988 .69 .58 .65
    2016 .87 .58 .67

    * through the first seven months

  42. 142
    Chris O'Neill says:

    Victor:

    My comment on this thread was based on the research I did back then.

    Maybe but in this thread you then started making a new false claim about Cox where you confused yourself with the 2015 temperature:

    The graph displayed by Cox is inconsistent with the satellite data, where in all cases 2015 is cooler than 1998, and there are no record years since then — though 2010 comes close.

    The claim “The graph displayed by Cox is inconsistent with the satellite data” is absolutely, totally and utterly false.

    You made an absolutely, totally and utterly false claim Victor. That’s pretty much all you’re good for.

  43. 143
    Chris O'Neill says:

    Victor:

    People take the time to write comments and then must wait days on end for a response.

    Suck it up princess. What a crybaby.

  44. 144
    Alfred Jones says:

    Peter Carson: The correct version says GE is proportional to the total density of the atmosphere.

    So THAT’s why low pressure systems are often colder than high pressure ones, and all we have to do to solve GW is to start releasing helium in massive quantities? Or, even easier, when the atmosphere warms up, it gets less dense, thus automagically regulating the planet’s temperature.

    Perhaps if you changed/clarified your alternative reality to “GE is proportional to the mass of the atmosphere divided by the surface area of the planet” …

    You start with a small truth: that every gaseous molecule in the atmosphere, regardless of species, helps warm the planet simply by virtue of its mass. Yep, but it’s small and the total is essentially a constant. Burning carbon does increase the mass of the atmosphere a tad, but CO2 vs O2 isn’t a huge change. Scientists aren’t ignoring your truth, but noted long ago that yours is a very very small truth when compared to the effects of molecules which absorb and re-radiate infrared light.

    ———

    Piotr: As for the motives of using multiple names, in my 20+ years of Internet discussions, I have seen it done only for three reasons:

    AJ: First, I rarely change my name. Second, when I do so, I do it in an obvious fashion, so the linkage is not hidden. Third, there is no overlap in the names or change in stance, tone, or style. I change names openly and honestly.

    So, even though you claim to have the ability to discern motivations, you have failed to do so in this case. Your explanations all obviously fail to explain the current scenario. Feel free to take another stab, but in any case, it should be obvious to you that even after 20+ years, you’re working without a proper model.

    ——-

    Crickets, with regard to your claim that a single Powerwall makes the grid superfluous: as expected, only crickets answered the actual point, while Crickets swept it under the rug. You are a hypocrite who demands that Victor admit error when you are simply too weak to do so yourself.

    As to your warmongering beliefs, that’s so far off topic! I will give you some advice, though: read the Bible and attempt to intersect the wisdom of Jesus with modern geopolitics. Would Jesus invest more in the Offense budget or the Peace Corps? Why? (Hint: because it works)

  45. 145

    PC 138: “All gases are greenhouse;”

    BPL: This is wrong. You have the wrong definition.

    PC: “they don’t need to be able to absorb IR to heat – conduction & convection work perfectly well.”

    BPL: True. But trivial and irrelevant. The major energy input to the climate system is radiation, not either convection or conduction, and since the latter two depend on temperature differences initially induced by radiation, they wouldn’t be there on their own. Once again, please crack a book on atmosphere physics.

    PC: The correct version gives the correct results across the 3 rocky planets, Venus, Earth & Mars. The AGW “Greenhouse” version does not. A theory has to match all available data; therefore AGW is wrong.

    BPL: As the author of a paper successfully applying standard greenhouse theory to just those three planets (Advances in Space Research 2011), I dispute your basic contention. Plus, you seem to be confusing “AGW theory” (anthropogenic global warming) with “the greenhouse effect.” They are not the same.

    Crack. A. Book. The fact that you have a degree in physical chemistry means nothing when talking outside your field, as you are when you take on atmosphere physics.

  46. 146

    AJ: Crickets, with regard to your claim that a single Powerwall makes the grid superfluous: as expected, only crickets answered the actual point, while Crickets swept it under the rug. You are a hypocrite who demands that Victor admit error when you are simply too weak to do so yourself.

    BPL: I admit that I was in error for even responding to a crackpot like you in the first place, but now I’m hooked.

    AJ: As to your warmongering beliefs

    BPL: I don’t have any warmongering beliefs.

    AJ: that’s so far off topic!

    BPL: Nor was I the one to bring the subject up. You don’t read very carefully, do you?

    AJ: I will give you some advice, though: read the Bible and attempt to intersect the wisdom of Jesus with modern geopolitics. Would Jesus invest more in the Offense budget or the Peace Corps? Why? (Hint: because it works)

    BPL: I’m a born-again Christian, and an ordained Deacon and Elder in the Presbyterian Church USA. I also studied New Testament Greek with Dr. Orr for eight years. So I’m guessing I might have a better knowledge of the Bible than you.

    Matthew 10:34. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

  47. 147
    Thomas says:

    140 Nick O., thanks for that alert, it’s a very unusual pattern of melt.

    Seems to have fallen over a cliff from 14th to 31st Aug. images. The NSDIC Aug report will be out soon I hope.

    For a quick look
    @14th http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/08/Figure1-1-350×417.png

    @31st http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_dthumb.png

  48. 148
    Chris O'Neill says:

    Peter Carson:

    It can be shown that AGW via CO2 is not possible.

    You haven’t been paying attention for at least the past one hundred and sixty years Peter.

  49. 149
    Thomas says:

    146 Barton P Levenson says: I’m a born-again Christian, and an ordained Deacon and Elder in the Presbyterian Church USA. I also studied New Testament Greek with Dr. Orr for eight years. So I’m guessing I might have a better knowledge of the Bible than you.

    Matthew 10:34. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

    Thanks again for the endless confirmations. The Church is THAT WAY ——>

  50. 150
    Piotr says:

    AJ:144: “even after 20+ years, you’re working without a proper model.”

    Piotr: too bad that you didn’t take the next logical step and _proved_ your claim, by providing a BETTER explanation why you are changing your names than the 3 I have offered. It should have been easy for you – you must know why you change your names, right? ;-)

    AJ: “I change names openly and honestly.”

    Two questions then:

    – why change them at all (if not for the 3 reasons you already labelled as untrue)?

    – why, when Hank asked about your previous identities, have you responded with accusations of “instigation of a witch hunt to invade [your] privacy”, when _now_ you make your rhetorical points on the claims how OPEN to others are your previous identities ( “I change names openly and honestly.”) ?

    Piotr